11889 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 183 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, March 10, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES March 10, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 183 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 183 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 183 (Version officielle) 147 183 10 03 2015 2015/03/10 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Canadian Human Rights Commission The Speaker : I have the honour to lay upon the table the 2014 annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. [ Translation ] Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)( e ), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[ English ] Committees of the House Health Mr. Ben Lobb (Huron—Bruce, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Health, entitled “Vaping: Towards a Regulatory Framework for e-Cigarettes”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. I would also like to mention that the report was unanimous as well.

Criminal Code Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) Bill C-656. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-656,

an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fetal alcohol disorder) . He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to introduce this private member's bill, which will amend the Criminal Code to establish a procedure for the assessment of individuals who are involved in the criminal justice system and who may suffer from fetal alcohol disorder. It requires the court to consider a determination that the offender suffers from fetal alcohol disorder as a mitigating factor in sentencing. A similar bill was earlier introduced and then withdrawn in this Parliament.

This bill builds on the previously introduced bill by adopting some recommendations from the Canadian Bar Association that require Correctional Service of Canada to also recognize the existence of fetal alcohol disorder as a disability within that system. At the justice committee we are currently engaged in a study of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. It is clear that there is a need for legislation. It is also clear that the original version of this bill that was introduced had the support of all parties.

My hope is that will result in the fast-tracking of this bill, which is an improvement on the earlier one. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Question No. 936 will be answered today. [ Text ] Question No. 936-- Mr. Craig Scott : With respect to the government and activities in Sudan or South Sudan of oil and mining companies incorporated in Canada or of subsidiaries of such companies: (

a) has the government provided any assistance of any kind, including via the Export Development Corporation, consular assistance or assistance of any other government officials, to a company called the State Oil Company Canada Ltd; (

b) which Canadian oil and mining companies, or subsidiaries of such companies, does the government know to be operating either (

i) in Sudan, (ii) in South Sudan; and (

c) is it the policy of the government to encourage and facilitate the investment of Canadian oil and mining companies in Sudan and in South Sudan, (

i) if so, in what ways, (ii) if not, does the government have a policy to counsel against, discourage and prohibit such investment and, if so, through what measures? Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, with regard to international trade, the Government of Canada does not have any records or information with regard to the provision of any assistance of any kind to a company called State Oil Company Canada Ltd. The Government of Canada is aware that State Oil Company of Canada and Orca Gold Inc. are operating in the mining and oil sectors in Sudan.

This information is publicly available on their respective websites. The Government of Canada has implemented a number of national measures against Sudan in response to the human rights and humanitarian situation. These measures include withholding commercial support services. In addition, Canada has implemented United Nations sanctions towards Sudan, UNSC 1591, in connection with the conflict in Darfur, including an arms embargo and an asset freeze and travel ban directed against designated persons.

This does not, however, prohibit Canadians from facilitating or initiating business contacts with Sudan, so long as they act in accordance with international sanctions. Since July 2011, the Government of Canada has offered trade services to Canadian companies wishing to do business in the Republic of South Sudan through the High Commission in Nairobi. Canada's commercial footprint in South Sudan is minimal, due in large part to concerns about political stability, the high costs of doing business and lack of up-to-date market intelligence.

A private sector investment conference in Juba took place in December 2013, with Canadian funding to support a session on conflict sensitivity in investment.

The Government of Canada advises against all non-essential travel to Sudan. See http://travel.gc.ca/destinations/sudan. The Government of Canada advises against all travel to South Sudan. See http://travel.gc.ca/destinations/south-sudan. Export Development Canada does not have any records or information with regard to the provision of any assistance of any kind to a company called State Oil Company Canada Ltd. [ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, furthermore, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

[ Translation ] Points of Order Procedure During Votes — Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : I am now prepared to respond to the point of order raised by the Chief Government Whip on February 19, 2015, regarding decorum during the taking of recorded divisions. I would like to thank the hon. Chief Government Whip for having raised this matter, as well as the hon.

House Leader of the Official Opposition and the members for Winnipeg Centre and Ottawa—Orléans for their comments. [ English ] In raising this matter, the Chief Government Whip sought clarification of acceptable practices during a recorded division, further to one that had taken place earlier that day. In particular, he requested that the Chair clarify each member's obligation to remain in their seats for the duration of a recorded division, from the time the question is put to the House to the announcement of the results.

The requirements of members during a recorded division are clearly laid out in Standing Order 16, which states: When the Speaker is putting a question, no Member shall enter, walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or disturbance. House of Commons Procedure and Practice , second edition, provides further explanation when it states at page 580: From the time the Speaker begins to put the question until the results of the vote are announced, Members are not to enter, leave or cross the House, nor may they make any noise or disturbance.

Members must be in their assigned seats in the Chamber and have heard the motion read in order for their votes to be recorded. [ Translation ] In addition, successive rulings have provided sound guidance for the Speaker in this respect. On the requirement for members to be present in the chamber to hear the question, the current Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole stated on June 5, 2014, at page 6257 of the Debates of the House of Commons : In terms of who is or is not eligible to vote, the issue is that the member needs to be in the Chamber in order to hear the question.

That is the test for whether they can vote or not. [ English ] However, and more directly to the point raised by the Chief Government Whip, each member's obligation does not end there, as they must also remain in their seats until the results of the vote are announced. As Speaker Milliken reminded the House on October 28, 2003, at page 8884 of the Debates: I would urge hon. members that if they want to have their vote count, they must remain in their seats from the time the vote begins until the result of the vote is announced.

Where there is a question as to whether either of these requirements has not been met, our practice typically allows the member to clarify the situation for the House, with the House accepting the member's word, as it must. As Standing Order 1.1 states: The Speaker may alter the application of any Standing or special Order or practice of the House in order to permit the full participation in the proceedings of the House of any Member with a disability.

Needless to say, the explanation given by the member for Winnipeg Centre , in which he indicated that he was temporarily disabled, self-inflicted though it may have been, was deemed satisfactory to the Deputy Speaker, and there the matter has ended. It would not be the first time that the House, in the face of a situation without known precedent, finds a way to accommodate a member in need. I would like to thank all members for their attention in this matter and for their continued support in maintaining order and decorum during the voting process.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Business of Supply (1010) [ English ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Government Investments Mr.

Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) moved: Motion That, in light of sustained high unemployment since the 2008 recession and the long term downward trend in job quality since 1989 under successive Liberal and Conservative governments, as documented by CIBC, the House call on the government to make the first priority of Budget 2015 investment in measures that stimulate the economy by creating and protecting sustainable, full-time, middle-class jobs in high-paying industries in all regions of Canada and abandoning its costly and unfair $2 billion income-splitting proposal. He said: Mr.

Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank you for that very fair and justified ruling that you just gave to the House, which perhaps even set a new precedent for decorum. It was in fact brief and to the point, which was helpful to all members. [ Translation ] I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Newton—North Delta . Canada's economy has a number of weaknesses. That is why we, the official opposition, feel it is essential to have a debate on our economy today.

I know that my Conservative colleagues would rather talk about something else—anything else, actually—but like the vast majority of Canadians, we want a debate and some answers about the economic realities we are facing, including a very high unemployment rate, a weak economy and the deterioration in employment quality over the past generation that is likely to be long term, according to a new report by CIBC. We believe that the government does not have a plan B. Canadians know that the Conservative government is only interested in developing the oil sector of the economy. It ignores the rest.

It is deeply obsessed with a very controversial pipeline and has nothing to say about other aspects of our economy. The NPD is in favour of a highly diversified and more just economy. [ English ] Let us put first things first. We have to understand that despite the Conservatives' current obsession with attempting to change the channel away from economic matters to just about anything else, there is a responsibility for us as parliamentarians to take on the challenges of the day. A clear challenge that is facing us as Canadians and Canadian legislators is the economy.

The statistics prove that we have not seen such worrisome trends since the 2008 recession. This was most recently highlighted in a report by the CIBC, which shows that job quality in Canada has fallen to its lowest level in a generation. What does that mean? Job quality, as measured, has moved Canadians away from good-paying, middle-class, secure employment to increasingly part-time, insecure, and low-paying jobs that do not support families.

We would think that this would be a preoccupation for a Conservative government that claims to make such great strides on the economy, but, over a generation, we have seen the quality of employment and jobs in Canada steadily decline under both Conservative and Liberal governments. We would think that the government would seek ways to enhance the opportunities for Canadians and seek ways to solve some of the productivity conundrums that we have been having for far too long, yet the choices being made by the Conservatives are most perplexing because they do not address the needs of the economy.

Sure, the $2 billion income-splitting scheme that the government committed to, thereby spending a surplus before it had it, helps the top 15% of Canadian income earners. It is fine for the wealthiest Canadians under a Conservative government. Doubling the TFSA will overwhelmingly help that same group of Canadians. It has been demonstrated in report after report that there are not that many middle-income and low-income Canadians with an extra $11,000 burning a hole in their pocket at the end of the year.

However, in a Conservative reality, the people who do have that kind of money, the people who can split their incomes and take advantage of the $2 billion Conservative scheme at the highest end of the Canadian wealth spectrum, are the priority for the government. They are not the priority for the NDP. We saw most recently in the Statistics Canada report in January that we actually lost full-time employment, even in a month when we supposedly did well. What was created, again, was part-time, insecure work.

(1015) Over the last year, we have seen the Canadian population rate grow at almost double the rate of job growth in this country. That should worry anybody, because the trend is unsustainable if our population is growing almost twice as fast as new jobs and those jobs being created are precarious, part-time, low-paying jobs. Not only are Conservative practices with regard to our environment unsustainable, but we now see that their practices with regard to our economy are unsustainable, and they are leaving a debt.

We know the Conservatives have added somewhere north of $155 billion to the Canadian debt in their tenure. We know they have lost 400,000 manufacturing jobs, just since the Conservatives took office. We know that 200,000 more people are unemployed today in Canada than before the recession, yet the Conservatives claim that everything is perfectly fine and there is nothing to do here. In fact, things are so good, according to the Conservatives, that they have an extra $2 billion kicking around to help out the wealthiest 15% of Canadians.

They have so much money right now and the economy is doing so well that the Conservatives were able to dump in more than $1 billion on these self-promoting ads that constantly interrupt every hockey game anyone has looked at in the last few years—to do what? They spend more money by far on these ads than they do on food inspection or rail safety. They do more in self-promotion than they do to help out Canadian workers. We see youth unemployment doubling the rate of the national average.

We know that has not only short-term impacts on young Canadians and their families, but it has long-term impacts on their prospects. For those young people entering into such a weak workforce, it means that they do not go into the professions for which they are trained, with the skills they have invested in. They have to take whatever job might be available in a tough economic market. We see, in fact, that women's participation in the workforce is at its lowest rate since 2002. For women considering going to work, one of the main factors and principles are the family policies that exist around going to work.

This is why New Democrats highlight and put a circle around the stain of Conservative policies with regard to our economy; the economy that they just do not want to talk about anymore, if members have noticed. We cannot seem to get the Minister of Finance up on his feet in question period anymore. He has been benched and missing in action. Yet Canadians want to know where the solutions are coming from. Where are the ideas coming from? Where is the budget coming from? Crossing their fingers and hoping things get better in the oil markets is not exactly a plan for the Canadian economy.

In fact, over-focussing on just one commodity, as the Conservatives have done with regard to oil for the last 10 years, has put Canada in a precarious place when oil prices fell, as they inevitably do. Yet we have a government in panic mode suggesting that, “Well, we're just going to wait a few more months, and Canadians are going to have to wait with us”. Well, New Democrats are not waiting. We are putting forward proposals that will actually address the needs of the Canadian economy. Take, for instance, the New Democrat proposal put forward by our leader to lower the small business taxes in this country.

Small businesses account for 40% of our GDP and involve 8 million Canadians. Almost 80% of all new jobs are created by small businesses. When we put forward that motion in the House of Commons, Conservatives voted against it, joined by Liberals for some reason. When we put forward a motion that would help the manufacturing sector, because we have lost 400,000 jobs in that sector, Conservatives, again joined by Liberals, voted against it.

When New Democrats put forward the idea of an innovation tax fund to help us with our productivity and innovation, because Canada lags behind the rest of the world with respect to research and development, we saw Conservatives, again joined by Liberals, voting against it. New Democrats are going to continue to support a $15 minimum wage, the $15 affordable child care to help Canadians get back to work, and an economy that works for Canadians, not against them. We will support an economy that will put Canadians back to work.

We will form a government in 2015 that is focused on the interests of Canadians and not on the narrow partisan interests of a government just hoping and praying for re-election.

(1020) Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister of Labour, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech. I listened to it intently. One of the things the member talked about was a $15 national daycare program.

I want to know how the NDP plans to put this big bureaucratic program together, which would not support people in the rural parts of the country, which would not support people on shift work, which could support people who are working during the day, and which would not support people in small businesses who have variable work shifts and variable times when they work and when they do not. Also, part of the NDP plan involves the provinces contributing literally millions of taxpayers' dollars to this big bureaucratic program.

However, we know that many of the provinces across the country are cash strapped and would not be able to participate. I would like to know how the member can justify putting this big bureaucratic program together, which would only support a very small segment of society and would never be able to be implemented in many provinces, because the provinces would not be able to make their share of the payments. Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, suddenly, a small segment of society is every working parent in the country. We think that is a much larger one.

Listening to my friend, I think the Conservatives sometimes suffer from a lack of ambition. When the debate was on in Canadian politics about whether to create a public education system, Conservatives would have said that it is just some big, bureaucratic institution. When New Democrats put forward the idea of a public health care system, I am sure Conservatives of the day asked why we would possibly want a big, bureaucratic health care system. Why? It is because we on this side of the House believe in equality. We believe in opportunity. I come from rural Canada. I ran a small business in rural Canada.

The lack of perception from the Conservatives, saying that rural Canada cannot provide any affordable child care spaces, is a deep lack of ambition and a lack of understanding about rural Canada. That small business owners do not want access to affordable child care is a complete misunderstanding of the small business community in Canada, because they do. I know they do. That is why New Democrats stand with the small business community. That is why the CFIB, the chamber, and the Canadian manufacturers association all got on board with our policies.

I simply do not understand why Conservatives cannot see the light. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong in good part when he makes the assertion that small businesses support his leader's approach to reducing small business loans. The Liberal Party voted against it because it was somewhat of a “dumb policy”, to quote others. At the end of the day, there would be no incentive for small businesses to hire. This resolution is about hiring, getting more Canadians employed.

We can compare that approach to what the Liberals have proposed with the EI premium exemption, which would have generated tens of thousands of jobs in every region of the country. Independent, outside stakeholders acknowledged that would happen if the House had adopted that particular policy. Liberals governed at a time when they inherited a 14%-plus unemployment rate and brought it down to 6%, and that was part of the equation. Why does the NDP continue not to acknowledge good ideas that would get valuable jobs and get Canadians employed, as opposed— The Deputy Speaker : Order, please.

I ask all members to keep both their questions and their answers to one minute. Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, who are we going to believe on this one: Liberals who say that the only solution to fix the Canadian economy is to raid the EI fund again? They took $56 billion out of it the first time around when they were in office. I guess they got used to the habit of just dipping into a fund and stealing from workers and employers, who put into it for employment insurance, to pad all of their schemes. I do not know how much sponsorship scandal money came out of the EI fund, but we know $56 billion came out.

We believe in lowering the small business tax rate, not a loan. Maybe the confusion the Liberal Party has is that it voted against something without understanding it, because the proposal from us was to lower it by 20%. Here is what Dan Kelly, the head of the CFIB said about it. He said: Cutting the small business tax rate by nearly 20% will provide a big boost to small business owners across the country and help them create jobs. Therefore, who are we going to believe?

Are we going to believe the head of the CFIB or the Liberals with yet another EI ripoff scheme that would not create jobs and would only hurt workers and employers in our country?

(1025) Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to second the motion and thank my colleague for his very powerful introduction. My colleague and I both have the great privilege of representing constituents from ridings in beautiful British Columbia. That is perhaps one of the reasons we are both so passionate about the motion before us today. Youth unemployment is inexcusably high in B.C., and the government is failing our young people. They cannot find jobs, and yet the government is focused on income splitting. It is almost a joke.

That is why, with today's motion, New Democrats are suggesting a plan that would actually help working and middle-class Canadians. I would like to invite the finance minister or the Minister of Employment and Social Development to Surrey-Newton, where I am from, and have them tell the young people there, who are desperate to get decent-paying jobs and cannot, about income splitting. They will see how much it resonates with them. They will not be surprised to learn that it does not resonate at all. The fact of the matter is simple.

Income splitting is not helping young people, it is not helping small businesses, and it is not helping middle-class families. Therefore, today New Democrats are calling on the government to take concrete steps to help create good quality jobs, protect and improve existing jobs, and more broadly address the challenges facing the middle class. We are looking for the government to support some practical first steps, including a better workplace minimum wage, fairer pensions, and investments in small businesses. Job quality is at an all-time low. Let us fix it.

Do members know that 98% of all businesses in Canada are small businesses that have fewer than 100 employees? They are the backbone of our country's economy. Surrey is full of small businesses. Surrey Board of Trade CEO Anita Huberman is focused, as is the whole board, on helping businesses grow and thrive in Surrey, with the following goals: business attraction, business research, business training, policy and development advocacy, workplace development, and youth entrepreneurship. Mr. Speaker, did you know that small businesses contribute almost 40% of Canada's GDP?

Small businesses employ nearly 8 million Canadians and created 78% of all new private-sector jobs between 2002 and 2012. Therefore, why are the Conservatives ignoring Canada's small business owners in favour of supporting wealthier, more profitable corporations? They should help Anita and the Surrey Board of Trade grow our community and commit to creating and protecting sustainable, full-time, middle-class jobs in high-paying industries in all regions of Canada. Since 2006, the Conservatives have cut the corporate tax rate for the wealthiest companies by over 25%, reducing the tax rate from 22% to 15%.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives cut taxes on job-creating small business owners by only a mere 1%. Why are the Conservatives not investing more in job-growing businesses? When I go home to Surrey-Newton and North Delta this weekend, I will be telling my constituents that New Democrats stood in the House of Commons this week and called on the Conservatives to take immediate action to boost job creation and grow our economy in budget 2015.

I am going to tell them that we stood up for working and middle-class families and demanded that the Conservative government cancel its costly income-splitting plan and use those funds to invest in improving job quality for the benefit of all Canadians, not just the rich few. We are asking the government to implement our plan to help create well-paying jobs in a diversified economy, because New Democrats want an economy that is fair to the middle class. This handout to the wealthy, the Conservatives' income-splitting scheme, will leave regular Canadians falling further behind, and it must be scrapped.

New Democrats want a budget that focuses on diversifying the Canadian economy rather than putting all our eggs in one basket. I am very proud to be with a leader of the official opposition who understands this.

(1030) I truly hope that when I go home this weekend I can tell the people of Newton—North Delta that the Conservative government supported this motion. There are no more excuses for the government. It can try to change the channel all it likes, but it is failing on the economic grounds because there are too many people without decent-paying jobs. Over the last decade of Liberal and Conservative governments, we have lost more than half a million manufacturing jobs. There are still nearly 1.3 million Canadians unemployed.

Although employment increased in January, it was entirely driven by part-time employment with 47,200 part-time jobs created while close to 12,000 full-time jobs actually disappeared. As well, there has been a major decline in full-time employment for men in our community. We already know that it is very high for women. Over the last 12 months, employment growth was a meagre 0.7%. Long-term unemployment is still close to its post-crisis peak. Average hours worked remain low, and the proportion of involuntary part-time workers continues to be elevated.

The participation rate, the number of people who are employed or actively seeking work, trended downward all through 2014 and hit its lowest level since 2000. This has been a major contributor to the decreased unemployment rate. As unemployed people give up on looking for work, they are no longer counted in the official unemployment rate, which can cause the rate to go down. The reality is different. The youth unemployment rate is still nearly double the rate for all workers at 12.8% across the country.

The Business Improvement Areas in my riding has a mission statement that goes like this: “Creating a vibrant, safe, and livable downtown; fostering positive community and government partnerships; supporting positive investment climate; collaborating for a safer community; promoting revitalization and community development.” In order to foster a vibrant community, we need jobs. In order to have jobs, we need investments in small businesses. In order to have government partnerships, we need a government that listens and responds. I will conclude with a

summary of what we want from the government. In light of sustained high unemployment since the 2008 recession and the long-term downward trend in job quality since 1989 under successive Liberal and Conservative governments, as documented by CIBC, the House calls on the government to make the first priority of budget 2015 investment in measures that stimulate the economy by creating and protecting sustainable, full-time, middle-class jobs in high-paying industries in all regions of Canada. We are urging the government to abandon its costly and unfair $2-billion income-splitting proposal.

At this stage, I also want to say that when we are in ridings, we have the privilege of meeting with our constituents. Our constituents include the business community. Right now, when I have discussions with the business community in my riding, they tell me that there are huge ways that we as parliamentarians could be helping them. We could be helping them by addressing issues like the transaction fees on credit cards. Every time a credit card is used in a store, the business has to pay a transaction fee that is incredibly high.

I was also surprised, but not really, that the much of the business community is supportive of the $15 minimum wage that we have supported for the federal sector. What I have heard is that businesses are willing to pay that much because then at least people will stay in the job. They know that $15 an hour is still not that great as a wage but it will allow people to buy their groceries. Businesses know that those people will spend the money in their communities.

(1035) Mr. Phil McColeman (Brant, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am so happy for the member's speech because it shows clearly what we are actually doing, which is reducing taxes for small, medium-sized and large businesses. Let me give an example that I hope she will tell the people in her riding about. In my community, which is a proud manufacturing community historically, recently we helped a company do a $63-million expansion with a $10-million loan, creating some 500 well-paying jobs. This is heavy forging for the natural resource extraction industry.

We helped another company with a $500,000 loan that is completely paid back now to the government. It went from 23 employees to 136 employees within two years of that injection. I gave those examples because small, medium-sized and large businesses need lower taxation to keep them here and keep them from moving to other jurisdictions. Let me say that, from a community that had 30% unemployment in 1980 to a community that had 6.7% unemployment, our programs are working. Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way for his passion at representing what happens in his riding.

However, when I talk to businesses in my community and in other parts of Canada where I have travelled in my critic role, I hear from small and medium-sized businesses that they are not getting the support they need. We have lowered the taxes for some of the largest oil companies and the international corporations that made billions in profit. We know that they have certain offshore bank accounts and they are not reinvesting in our country and they are not growing jobs.

What the small business community really needs is some tangible support and some real ways of supporting job growth right here in our communities. It is when we invest in small businesses that any increase in employment and the wealth that is earned get reinvested in our communities because that is where people live and learn and it does not leave our country and go into offshore accounts. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, whether it was Jim Flaherty or the leader of the Liberal Party, we have been very clear on income splitting and a small percentage of Canadians benefiting at a substantial cost. The middle class is subsidizing hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Jim Flaherty, the leader of the Liberal Party and other members of the House are right that we should oppose that measure. Infrastructure is needed in every corner of our country. This is something that generates job opportunities and improves the quality of living for all Canadians.

By building on our infrastructure, we are creating additional wealth in the long term. I wonder if the member might comment on the importance of investing in infrastructure today, unlike what the Conservatives are not doing by cutting back 90% of infrastructure dollars actually being spent this year. Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting that, as my colleague made his question, he found it so difficult to include the leader of the official opposition who one of the first people to come out and speak against income splitting.

I absolutely believe that we need to be investing in infrastructure. In my riding alone, we have a dire need for public transit. Unless the federal government partners with the provinces and with the municipalities and delivers for infrastructure development, we are not going to be able to replace our bridges or improve our ferry services, or build light public transit in the Lower Mainland. There must absolutely be investment in infrastructure, but also let us give credit where it is due.

It is only the NDP and its amazing leader who are speaking out for small and medium-sized businesses and not the party at that end.

(1040) Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister of Labour, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on this NDP motion. It is good to see that the members opposite are, for once, taking a slight interest in speaking about job creation with today's motion. We welcome them to this debate. We have made this a priority since being first elected in 2006. However, they have taken a stance that I strongly disagree with. The proposition that this government has done little to create jobs and growth is simply wrong.

I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight and I would like to thank New Democrats for giving us the opportunity to speak about our record on creating jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity for all Canadians. Today, I will emphasize some policy measures that we have taken to lower taxes and create jobs since forming government. Unlike the members opposite, our experience has been with lowering taxes.

While they have not met a tax they have never liked, we have created 1.2 million net new jobs since the depths of the economic recession in July of 2009, 85% of which are full-time jobs and 80% of which are in the private sector. Nearly two-thirds of these jobs have been created in high-wage sectors. This is one of the best job-creation records in the G7. This is in complete contrast to the Liberals and the NDP, who would saddle job creators and the workers they employ with high taxes and high debt. Under our low-tax plan, more Canadians are working today than at any other time in the history of our country.

At 6.6%, Canada is now enjoying its lowest unemployment rate in six years. How did we get here, coming from the largest economic recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s? We started with innovation. We encouraged innovation, which has been essential to economic growth. That is why our government remains committed to supporting innovation in Canada.

As previously stated by government members in the House, we have demonstrated this by providing millions of dollars in support every year to regional development agencies like the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Western Economic Diversification Canada, the Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, and the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency. These dollars have been provided so they can work with local businesses, universities and colleges to give them the tools they need to succeed and to help all Canadians grow our economy.

At the beginning of the recession, the government established the automotive innovation fund. This program initially was provided with $250 million over five years to support the automotive firms' strategic, large-scale research and development projects to build innovative, greener and more fuel-efficient vehicles. The government has since renewed the fund for an additional five years and provided it with a total of $1 billion to date, including $500 million through economic action plan 2014.

This money and investment in innovation for the automotive industry was thrown out by opposition members when they voted against that budget. The member opposite has asked us in his motion to stimulate the economy by creating and protecting sustainable, full-time, middle-class jobs in high-paying industries in all regions of Canada. Since 2006, that is exactly what we have done. Maybe the member opposite needs another reminder of what our government has accomplished to promote job growth in high-paying industries. I am speaking, of course, about supports that we provided to apprentices since taking office.

Since 2007, we have launched two apprenticeship grants: the apprenticeship incentive grant in 2007 and the apprenticeship completion grant in 2009. These grants so far have helped over 500,000 Canadians retool their skills for high-paying jobs, jobs that exist and need workers. We are supporting young people across this country to get the training they need to take these good, high-paying, available jobs throughout Canada. For aspiring apprentices lacking the cash to fund their red seal studies, we now offer them new interest-free loans while they study.

Since launching the Canada apprenticeship loan in January, over 2,000 promising students have already received Canadian apprenticeship loans this year. Our government is cutting taxes and increasing supports for plumbers, electricians, and carpenters to create jobs for apprentices from one end of the country to the other. The member opposite may feel the need to toss around untested theories in today' s motion about how to create good quality jobs and growth, but we in Canada's government have a proven record of success in doing so, even at a time of tremendous global economic adversity.

This is because we understand what drives the job-creation process. We also understand how to support this process for the benefit of all Canadians.

(1045) Let us take a look, for example, at the role Canada's manufacturers and small businesses play in creating jobs and supporting a strong Canadian economy. Comprising 98% of all employer businesses in Canada, small businesses are a significant driver of economic growth and an important pillar supporting workers, families, and communities across Canada. Our government appreciates the efforts and contributions these businesses make. As a result, we have implemented a range of policies and programs on the understanding that when our small businesses succeed, all Canadians succeed.

Since taking office, the government has put in place numerous measures that benefit Canadian small and medium-sized companies. For example, the accelerated capital cost allowance for investment in machinery and equipment has been of great benefit to Canada's manufacturers and processors, helping them make the investments they need to compete both at home and abroad.

On top of that, various initiatives by the Canada Revenue Agency have helped improve the provision of information and services to small businesses while reducing their administrative burden and increasing taxpayer fairness for all businesses across the country. These measures build on many others introduced by our Conservative government since 2006 that allow small businesses to make the investments they need to create good jobs and grow the Canadian economy.

Since 2006, for example, our government has reduced the small business tax rate to 11%; increased the amount of income eligible for the lower small business tax rate from $300,000 to $500,000; enhanced the availability and accessibility of financial support for innovative small and medium-sized businesses under the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program; and narrowed the definition of “taxable Canadian property”, eliminating the need for tax reporting under

section 116 of the Income Tax Act for investments by, for example, non-resident venture capital funds in typical Canadian high technology firms. We have also increased the lifetime capital gains exemption on qualified small business shares from $500,000 to $800,000 and indexed this limit to inflation. The exemption limit was increased to $813,000 for 2015 on account of indexation. We have reduced the paperwork burden on businesses by 20% through the paperwork burden reduction initiative.

We also established the Red Tape Reduction Commission to review areas of federal regulation most in need of reform to reduce the cost of compliance for small businesses. Cutting red tape supports small businesses. Cutting red tape reduces the administrative burden for small businesses, particularly the smallest of small businesses, those with a low number of employees, which do not have the resources available to deal with an increasing tax burden and an increasing administrative burden to deal with those taxes.

Lowering taxes and lowering the amount of red tape they have to go through to complete their taxes allows small businesses to have the resources to do what we want them to do, which is hire more people, produce more products, and expand the Canadian economy. In addition to these measures, we have eliminated close to 2,000 tariffs on manufacturing inputs, machinery, and equipment, providing about $400 million in annual duty savings. New trade agreements with South Korea and the European Union will also bring significant benefits and savings to Canadian businesses and will open up new markets for Canadian exports.

Our government knows that while creating savings and opportunities for businesses to grow and succeed is critical, no business can succeed without high calibre employees. The strength of our country lies with our people. That is why our government has introduced numerous training and employment insurance measures to help businesses create good jobs for Canadians. For example, the new small business job credit will deliver significant EI savings to businesses and will help them defray the cost of hiring new workers.

In case the member opposite is still not satisfied, let us talk about students and how our low-tax plan is benefiting young people across the country. Since 2006, we have ended the Liberal practice of taxing scholarships. In fact, we brought in the textbook tax credit, lowering the amount of money in taxes students have to pay to purchase their textbooks. Since 2012, the proportion of university-age Canadians attending university or college has reached an all-time high. Around two million students are enrolled in post-secondary institutions right now.

We also established the Canada student grants program for low- and middle-income students, students with dependents, and students with permanent disabilities. Since our government introduced the Canada student grants program in 2009, student loan debt has declined by 10%.

(1050) The last thing indebted students need is a tax hike by the Liberals and the NDP, a tax hike that would leave youth with less money to pay off student debt. While some members of the opposition are asking us to run a deficit in 2015, hoping apparently that the budget will somehow balance itself at a later time, I feel obligated to point out that the benefits of balancing the budget are important for Canadians. The benefits of balancing the budget and reducing debt are obvious to the average Canadian, except, perhaps, members of the opposition.

These include ensuring that tax dollars can be used to support and implement important social services, like benefits and health care for seniors, rather than paying interest costs; instilling confidence in consumers and investors, whose dollars spur economic growth and job creation; and of course, strengthening Canada's ability to respond to longer-term international challenges, domestic challenges, and demographic challenges, such as aging populations, unexpected global economic shocks, and global security threats.

Balancing the budget now is our shield against the uncertain forces that may attack Canada in the future. After all, it provided the flexibility for Canada to weather the storm so well when the global economic and financial crisis struck just a few short years ago. The measures I have detailed today translate into more success, more jobs, and stronger growth for all Canadians. This is what Canada's economic action plan is all about. We have a proven record in being strong stewards of the economy of this country, and Canadians are better off as a result.

I would encourage the members opposite and all Canadians to bear this in mind when considering the risky theories the opposition has to offer. Remember, under our government, the tax burden on Canadians is now at its lowest level in over 50 years, its lowest level since John Diefenbaker was prime minister of this nation. On average, Canadian families are paying $3,400 less in federal taxes each year than they were under the Liberal Party before 2006. In addition, every family with children in Canada stands to benefit from a range of tax breaks we are putting in place this year.

Contrary to the NDP motion, I strongly believe that the initiatives I have focused on today will significantly benefit all Canadians. We have announced the new family tax cut and the enhanced universal child care benefit, which will leave 100% of Canadian families with children better off, with almost $2,000 back in their pockets. The vast majority of these benefits will flow to low- and middle-income families. The tax cuts introduced by our government will not only help ordinary Canadians improve their ability to save now but will give them an opportunity to plan and save in the future.

The Liberals and NDP would take these benefits away and would increase taxes on Canadians and hard-working Canadian families. Our plan will keep taxes low and will focus on job creation. I can assure the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley that economic action plan 2015 will continue to keep taxes low and help Canadians succeed in the growing global economy, creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for all Canadians. Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I do not know what world members opposite live in. The hon. member made a reference to student debt being low today.

I can tell him that never before in the history of Canada have more students graduated with higher student debt than in 2015 in Canada. We can visit any campus across this country and talk to young people, and they will tell us the same thing. My question is about jobs. The Conservatives constantly stand in this House and talk about the jobs that are being created, but they do not talk a lot about the quality of the jobs.

Benjamin Tal, the deputy chief economist of CIBC, said: The number of low-paying full-time jobs has risen faster than the number of mid-paying jobs, which in turn has risen faster than the number of high-paying jobs. Over the year ending January 2015, the job creation gap between low and high-paying jobs has widened with the number of low-paying full-time paid positions rising twice as fast as the number of high-paying jobs.

The Economist has also said that the government's pledge to proceed with tax reductions in the face of being unable to balance the budget is imprudent and that “[t]he delay in presenting the budget adds to the impression of fiscal disarray”. What can the member tell Canadians about the fact that the quality of jobs in this country being created are resulting in more low-paying jobs and not the mid- and high-paying jobs he professes them to be?

(1055) Mr. Scott Armstrong : Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on providing good, high-paying, full-time jobs. Since the pit of the economic recession in July of 2009, we have created 1.2 million net new jobs. The vast majority are full-time jobs. The vast majority of them are also in the private sector. These are good-paying jobs. When people applied for these jobs, 1.2 million answered the phone, and a boss at the other end said, “You are hired. We need you to help us grow the economy and grow the opportunities for all Canadians”. Let us look at a couple of specific issues.

The member opposite is from British Columbia. I am from Atlantic Canada. Our government put forward the largest shipbuilding procurement program in the history of our country to rebuild the Canadian navy for the future. That is thousands of good-paying jobs, supported by the Canadian government, in both Atlantic Canada and British Columbia. However, when we put that forward, the leader of the opposition at that time said that we should spread those jobs out, that we should not actually support the jobs on the east coast of Canada. We focused on creating jobs. We focused on rebuilding the Canadian navy.

These are good, high-paying jobs, and the member opposite and his party voted against it. Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the member and his government are very much out of touch with the economic reality faced by Canadians and the challenges faced by Canadian families across the country and in his riding of Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley. He said that 1.2 million new jobs have been created since 2008. He is ignoring the fact that the working age population in Canada, the number of people eligible to work in Canada, has increased by two million.

We have had stagnant economic growth and flatlined job growth in terms of good-quality jobs. Is the member aware that in his own riding, which is part of the north region of Nova Scotia, there have been 6,700 net jobs lost since 2008? Sixty-three hundred of those jobs were full-time jobs. If he is not aware of that, why does he not have a better idea of what is going on in terms of the challenges faced by families in his own riding?

If he is aware of it, how can he stand and boast about his government's record, when people in his own riding are struggling because they have lost full-time work and are trying to pay their bills on part-time jobs? Mr. Scott Armstrong : Mr. Speaker, when we look at what is happening in Atlantic Canada, we actually cut the GST, after coming into power in 2006, from 7% to 6% to 5%, lowering the tax burden on Canadians from one coast to the other.

The problem we had in Nova Scotia was that as soon as the federal government gave those Canadians in Nova Scotia, like the members of my riding, the constituents I support, a needed tax break, the current government, supported by the previous government, increased those taxes by 2%, stealing the tax cut the federal government gave to Nova Scotians and the constituents of Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley and put it back in its coffers. That was put in place by the NDP government and is now supported by the Liberal government in Nova Scotia. Those governments do not support low taxes.

They do not support balanced budgets. They do not support creating jobs in Atlantic Canada. We do. We stand up for Canadians. We are cutting taxes, and we are creating job growth. We need them to get on board and support us. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the motion the NDP has brought forward today refers, in its introduction, to a document by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, which is hardly a validator, usually, for the official opposition.

It refers to something called the employment quality index, which measures the distribution of part-time versus full-time jobs, self-employment versus paid employment, and compensation. In that context, the deputy chief economist, Benjamin Tal, said the following: The number of low-paying full-time jobs has risen faster than the number of mid-paying jobs, which in turn has risen faster than the number of high-paying jobs. Over the year..., the job creation gap between low and high-paying jobs has widened with the number of low-paying full-time paid positions rising twice as fast as the number of high-paying jobs.

I would ask the member to comment on whether the unemployment rate, which for youth is already almost 13%, at 12.8%, where people with engineering degrees are working at Starbucks, is not, it seems, confirmed by the CIBC. Could he comment on that situation?

(1100) Mr. Scott Armstrong : Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have invested in the youth employment strategy. We have invested $300 million to support young people across the country to get the training and the jobs they need to obtain the experience required to apply for and get higher paying jobs in the future. We have put initiatives together such as the apprenticeship loan, the apprenticeship grants, support for the people engaged in Red Seal trades, investments in pipeline projects across the country, in the shipbuilding procurement project and in supporting a loan guarantee for the Labrador hydroelectric project.

The NDP consistently votes against these proposals to help us train our young people and provide effective and good jobs for young people in the manufacturing and energy industries. If the New Democrats really care about supporting jobs for young people across the country, they would support our initiatives to lower taxes and support our natural resource industries so we can sell these products internationally through free trade agreements, which they also consistently vote against. Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, my colleague from Nova Scotia talks about the jobs created in the Nova Scotia shipbuilding industry. I would like to hear from him how many jobs were created in New Brunswick. In New Brunswick, out of ten members of Parliament, eight come from the Conservative Party. When David Alward was the premier of New Brunswick, he kept asking for help from the federal government, which he never received. We only have to look at the unemployment rate in the north of New Brunswick, where no jobs have been created.

We only have to look at the Conservative cuts to ACOA, a program that could help the small and medium-sized businesses that create 74% of the jobs. What has the government done in New Brunswick to help with the creation of jobs? Our people have to buy airplane tickets to fly west to work because there are no jobs in New Brunswick. Mr. Scott Armstrong : Mr. Speaker, in terms of supporting job growth in New Brunswick, our party stands solidly behind the workers. In fact, we are totally supportive of the great opportunity coming up with respect to the west to east pipeline project, the Line 9 reversal.

That will create thousands of jobs in New Brunswick. It will also create a whole new industry in crude oil exports. We will be able to export hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil to the international market once we get this pipeline set up and the refinery in Saint John producing a good, clean, value-added product, which we will sell internationally. When we put the measures in place to support that Line 9 reversal and to support this new industry in New Brunswick, then we will see if the NDP will support it. Crude oil exports will bring thousands of jobs to Atlantic Canada.

It will allow us to bring the oil produced in Alberta to the Atlantic coast, refine it there and sell it on the international market for a higher price than we could possibly get by exporting to the United States at the current time. The NDP members have been silent on whether they will support that project. It is time for them to stand up for New Brunswickers. It is time for them to stand up for Atlantic Canadians and support the Line 9 reversal. Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to today's motion on jobs and the economy.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Markham—Unionville . The Prime Minister and the Conservatives do not want to talk about the economy these days. In fact, they are so spooked by the topic that they are delaying the budget into the next fiscal year. We are told that we will not have a budget until April at the earliest. They do not want to talk about the economy, all because of plummeting oil prices. The Conservatives are also telling us that all the challenges facing Canadians and the Canadian economy today are a result of plummeting oil prices.

However, the reality is that we have faced real challenges in the Canadian economy, and Canadian families have faced real challenges, well before plummeting oil prices. In fact, the May 3 issue of the Economist magazine had an

article entitled, “Canada's economy: Maple, resting on laurels”, Canada's “post-crisis glow is fading”. In that article, the Economist said that the Conservative government's retelling of the 2008 crisis indicated that the Conservatives saved Canada from doom. It went on to say, “Yet luck played a large, unacknowledged part”. The Economist points to three areas where the Conservative government was lucky. First, the Conservatives were lucky that the previous Liberal government, Mr. Chrétien to Mr.

Martin, refused to follow the global trend of bank deregulation, and we have a strong banking system as a result of that. Second, there was a solid financial footing. The previous government paid down $80 billion of our national debt, but the current government has added $160 billion to the national debt. Lucky in a third way was that oil and gas revenues helped pick up the slack when manufacturing faltered, and no federal politician can take credit for putting the oil and gas under the ground in Saskatchewan and Alberta. However, we all know it was Danny Williams who put it under the water off Newfoundland.

The Economist pointed to three reasons why we went through the global financial crisis in 2008 better than other countries. The three reasons are: a strong banking system, a good fiscal situation, and oil and gas. The one thing they have in common is that the Conservative government has had nothing to do with any of it. The Economist also pointed out that since 2008, Canada's post-crisis glow was fading, and that in terms of growth and jobs, and growth in the GDP, Canada had actually fallen behind other countries.

In fact, if we look at 2015 numbers, Canada is projected to be 14th, or middle of the pack of 34 OECD countries in growth. We will be behind the U.S. and the U.K. In 2016, Canada is projected to be 21st of 34 OECD countries in economic growth. We will be behind the U.S., Australia and the U.K. There are real challenges. It is important to also recognize that when the Economist published that

article citing the challenges facing the Canadian economy, oil, WTI, at the time was at $104 a barrel, which is in fact more than twice where it is today. Therefore, even before plummeting oil prices, our economy had flatlined in growth and job creation. In terms of job creation, the CIBC report from last week said that Canadian job quality was at a record low. The growth of low-paying jobs compared to mid or high-paying jobs is significant. We are seeing fewer high-paying jobs created and more low-paying jobs. The Conservatives talk about 1.2 million jobs being created since 2008.

However, they are completely ignoring the fact that our working age population has grown by two million. Labour market participation remains lower than before 2008. People have given up looking for work. The number of people facing long-term unemployment, or people unemployed for over a year, today is twice that of 2008. There are 160,000 fewer jobs today for young Canadians than in 2008.

(1105) There are record levels of personal debt as middle-class parents and grandparents are forgoing retirement and retirement savings to financially support young Canadians who are unable to support themselves based on the low-quality jobs they are getting. It is damning of our economic situation and of the government's negligence and ignorance of that situation which it seems to be blissfully unaware, or perhaps it does not care, that this is the first generation of Canadian parents who believe their children will be worse off than them. The Conservative government does not get it.

It is out of touch, and one can only assume because of it delaying the budget, that it is also out of ideas. We needed a plan for jobs and growth before plummeting oil prices, and we need a plan for jobs and growth even more today. Even in terms of how it manages the petrol economy, because the Conservative economic plan was threefold, which was oil, oil and oil, it has not done very well.

Not one pipeline has been approved under the Conservative government, largely due to the fact that it either has no relations or toxic relations with the stakeholders and partners required to move these projects forward, whether it is with President Obama, aboriginal and first nations leaders, the provinces or the environmental community. The government and the Prime Minister have not built the kinds of relationships required to defend Canadian economic interests.

Former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney says that the top foreign policy priority of a Canadian prime minister is to have a personal relationship with the President of the United States. Mr. Mulroney would have gotten Keystone XL approved with President Reagan. Mr. Chrétien would have gotten Keystone XL approved with President Clinton. In fact, they understood the importance of relationships. However, the government cannot even meet with premiers to discuss moving forward on labour and training, and addressing the jobs-skills mismatch.

It cannot meet and sit down respectfully with aboriginal and first nations Canadians. It calls the environmental communities eco-terrorists. These are the stakeholders and partners we need to have our projects moving forward. Even in the area where the government is focused, and that is on oil, it has not done a very good job. The Bank of Canada has said that low oil prices are “unambiguously bad for growth”. It responded with a 25-basis point rate cut. What has been the response from the government, when we need action, when we need clarity, when we need certainty?

It has delayed the budget until April, perhaps hoping oil prices will increase. The reality is that wishful thinking is not a replacement for responsible budget making. Suncor and Encana cannot delay their public reporting or their annual reports because of low oil prices. They would have a regulatory challenge with the securities commission, but they would also create uncertainty with their investors. The same could be said about a federal government delaying the budget, ostensibly because of falling oil prices. I can remember governments that introduced budgets when oil prices were less than $40 per barrel.

I can remember governments balancing budgets back then. The fact is that the government is out of touch and out of ideas.

The Liberal plan for jobs and growth will be to invest in infrastructure, to take the historic opportunity we have today to rebuild Canada's infrastructure; to create jobs and growth today, and the kind of economy that will create more jobs and growth in the future; to invest in people and skills to ensure young Canadians have the skills they need for the jobs of today and to prepare for the jobs of the future; to invest in innovation, science and data; and to invest in the kinds of trade relationships we need, both globally with the Obama administration, China, Mexico and our traditional partners, but also within Canada, the kind of relationships required to build a strong economy.

A Liberal government will move this economy forward and will help Canadian middle-class families move ahead. The Conservative government is out of touch and totally out of ideas to benefit those families.

(1110) Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite about the fact that over 87% of the jobs created in Canada since the great recession have been full-time jobs, almost 85% of them in the private sector and nearly two-thirds in high-wage industries, and this in spite of the aging of the baby-boomer generation, which really makes people more inclined toward flexible work and part-time hours. We are glad that the economy responds to that. The CIBC report that has been recently in the news goes all the way back to 1988.

Most of the years since 1988 were with a Liberal government, and it seems to me that most of the declines referred to in the report since 1988 were under a Liberal government. Can the member at least admit, as many Canadians do across this land, that the present Conservative government has done a fantastic job since the recession in creating 87% full-time jobs and 85% private-sector, two-thirds—

(1115) The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. Again, I would ask all members to keep their questions to a minute. The hon. member for Kings—Hants. Hon. Scott Brison : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member again is demonstrating that the Conservatives are totally out of touch with the challenges faced by middle-class Canadian families, who are struggling. He does not seem to accept the fact that we have 160,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians than before the downturn.

He does not understand or get the reality that while we may have 1.2 million new jobs, the labour market of people who are eligible to work has grown by 2 million. The member does not seem to understand that the growth in jobs has been in lower-paying jobs, and that is in that CIBC report. For Canadian families, the bills still come in, whether they are for rent, car payments, or paying for hockey or education. The bills do not go down when someone loses a full-time job that is replaced by part-time work.

The member exemplifies the arrogance of the current government, which is so focused on patting itself on the back that it does not have time to be in touch with the challenges faced by Canadian families. Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, over the last 35 years in Canada, income inequality has grown. That means that the wealthiest Canadians in this country have gotten wealthier and the poorest Canadians have gotten poorer. The middle class has also shrunk in terms of its share of the wealth.

More than 94% of that income inequality growth over the last 35 years occurred under a Liberal government. That was fuelled by policies like abandoning the federal minimum wage along with downloading billions of dollars of federal spending from the federal government to the provinces and also cutting services to Canadians. I wonder if my hon. colleague in the Liberal Party will comment on whether the current Liberal Party would pursue the same policies that would make middle-class and working-class Canadians poorer, as happened so often under previous Liberal governments in this country. Hon. Scott Brison : Mr.

Speaker, it was my motion that led to a study of the House of Commons finance committee of income inequality. During my speech on that motion, I actually said that this is not a partisan issue. Income inequality has grown in Canada under political parties and governments of all stripes. In fact, it has grown in provinces led by NDP governments in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and it has grown under sovereigntist governments in Quebec.

Now the New Democrats, when we have an opportunity to have a substantive discussion on the challenges faced by families, continue to play the same games that the Conservatives play and want to make this a partisan issue. We have no quarrel with saying that income inequality has grown in Canada under governments of all stripes, including New Democrats. It is time to stop the bickering and start dealing with the issue and focus on building equality of opportunity for Canadians. Canadians are tired of this type of partisanship when we are dealing with important issues.

(1120) Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to talk on this topic. Just to amplify what my colleague said, which was that income inequality in Canada has grown under governments of all stripes, let me be clear: it has never grown under a federal NDP government, because there never has been one. We shall see if that continues in the next election. I would like to reinforce what my colleague said about the statistics in a somewhat different way. We have two parties here.

On the one hand, we have the CIBC bank saying that the quality of jobs is the worst it has been in Canada for 25 years, the worst since 1989. It measures that quality by a mix of wage levels and by part-time versus full-time employment and self-employment. According to its studies, job quality is the worst since 1989, when the studies began. On the other side there is the government, which puts out a flurry of its own statistics that suggest the opposite.

I know my colleague talked about those statistics, and that is an important issue, but I would like to put the question differently: which has more credibility on this issue, a bank that has done studies saying it is the worst in 25 years or a government that says everything it has done is marvellous? I would say the bank. I have a little credibility on this issue, because I used to work for a bank. Before I went into politics, I was chief economist for the Royal Bank.

That is not the CIBC; it is another bank, but a bank is a bank, and I can say that if there is a bias within the banks, it is that they really do not want to annoy the government in power if there is an option. Therefore, all other things being equal, it is not that banks will lie, but if they have a choice, they would rather not present statistics that embarrass the government of the day. That is because they want to please the government for various reasons, commercial and otherwise. CIBC is not out to get the government.

If anything, CIBC officials would prefer to please the government, yet the statistics are clear in their own minds. They cannot please the government on this issue because the facts say very clearly that the quality of jobs in Canada is indeed the worst in 25 years. That is what CIBC said in this study. I would argue, then, that CIBC has credibility, not only because it has competent economists who did the study but also because its own interest is to please the government rather than displease the government.

It is obvious from the debate today that by coming out with this fact, CIBC has displeased the government. I would argue that no amount of self-serving government statistics should counter the fact that the bank has come out with an opposite conclusion even though it is not particularly in the interests of the bank to do so. [ Translation ] The bank studies in this field are therefore credible. The bank does not want to embarrass the government, but it does want to tell Canadians the truth.

According to the bank's analysis, the labour market situation is the worst it has been for 25 years. [ English ] I am not sure I will devote more of my limited time to arguing the statistics. I rest my case by saying what I have already said, which is that the bank has far more credibility than the government on this issue. Given that the bank's facts are, broadly speaking, correct, the question then becomes what the federal government should do about it. What should the federal government do to address the fact that the job quality in this country has deteriorated to a point not seen for 25 years?

The first answer to what to do would be what not to do. What not to do is not present a budget. The budget is the basic core plan of the government. Particularly when times are tough and oil prices have plummeted and times are uncertain is precisely when the Canadian public and Canadian investors want to know that their government indeed has a plan.

By delaying the budget until some unknown, unspecified date, the government is clearly indicating that it has no plan, or has no plan B, shall we say; it does have its tired old economic action plan, but that plan fell apart when oil prices plummeted and it became clear that the tax measures it proposed would put us back into deficit. Conservatives want to keep that from the public. They want to focus the discussion on terrorists and war rather than on the economy, which is now doing very badly under their watch.

(1125) The first thing to do is have a plan, but the Conservatives' plan is non-existent. To the extent that it exists in the form of income splitting, it is indeed a bad plan. The objective should be, first and foremost, to favour the creation of jobs, and not just any jobs, but high-quality jobs of the kind that we have not seen in recent years. The second thing not to do is income splitting, because income splitting will do essentially nothing to help create growth and jobs, and it is a hugely biased program that benefits only 15% of Canadian households, leaving 85% totally out in the cold.

It will benefit only a very narrow segment of Canadian households, and not, by the way, those generally in the greatest need. It will not really do anything in terms of social justice by helping those most in need, nor will it do anything of any significance in terms of promoting jobs and growth or improving the dismal quality of jobs that we see around us today. The solution lies not in not having a budget or in this very poor income-splitting proposal, but rather in other measures, the kinds of measures that we in the Liberal Party have been focusing on. First and foremost, I would say, would be infrastructure.

We had a policy resolution some time ago at a policy convention calling for a very major increase in federal investment in infrastructure. The mayors of our cities are crying out for this measure. It has not escaped their notice that the federal government has cut infrastructure investment by 90% over the next two years, and it is now, not five years from now, that the cities are in desperate need of that expenditure. Given our job situation, there is a double reason for infrastructure. One is that we desperately need it. We have an enormous infrastructure deficit.

We need it for productivity, since it will enhance the transport network for our manufacturing sector and things of that nature, but we also need it for the jobs it will create. Economists' studies indicate that the multiplier effect or the job impact per $1 of expenditure is higher for infrastructure than for, I would say, anything else. Therefore, a second reason to focus on infrastructure is that it is highly efficient in creating jobs, often high-quality jobs, which would go some way toward counteracting the dismal situation that CIBC has indicated we find ourselves in today.

That is one major measure that would address this issue. Others would include support for higher education, because, as has been pointed out, under federal Liberal and Conservative governments—not, thankfully, NDP governments—we have over time seen an increase in inequality. Equality of opportunity is essential, and part of that equality of opportunity concerns access to post-secondary education, whether that be university, college, or some other form of post-secondary training.

That is just a small sample of the kinds of measures that we in the Liberal Party would propose in order to deal with this dismal situation of the lowest-quality jobs we have seen in this country for a quarter of a century. Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister of Labour, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the member opposite criticized our government's plan to support families by lowering taxes and increasing benefits in the universal child care benefit, expanding it so that it supports children aged 6 to 17 and putting literally hundreds of dollars in the pockets of Canadian families with children each and every year. He also criticized our plan to split incomes. When incomes are split, it provides tax fairness for families. Two teachers in a family making a total of $100,000 a year incur significantly less taxes than a person making $100,000 a year with the other parent choosing to stay at home.

We are bringing in tax fairness for all families with children with our income-splitting plan. We are increasing the benefits for the universal child care benefit for every Canadian family. We ask that the Liberals support these measures. Does the member across the way support lower taxes and tax fairness for Canadian families?

(1130) Hon. John McCallum : Mr. Speaker, I notice that at the macro level, the member is quite happy to talk in glowing terms about jobs created and the plans of the Conservative government. However, if we go to the micro level and his own riding, I note that they have lost 6,700 jobs since 2008. His glowing words at the macro level do not quite square with what is happening in his own backyard. That having been said, I would also point out that he is wrong when he says that we do not support measures to assist families. We have not said in any way that we are opposed to the overall benefit that is being offered.

We have said very clearly that we are opposed to income splitting, which is only one element, and the most regressive and unsatisfactory element, of the Conservative package. We would repeal it and use that money for purposes that would be of far greater benefit to Canadians in terms of job creation, and possibly also put money directly into the pockets of Canadians. [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Markham—Unionville on his speech. Of course, we have to agree that the Conservatives are dancing on the Titanic .

They continue to say that everything is fine and they will stay the course, when really, we are stranded in a void. Not only has the Minister of Finance still not brought down a budget, but all the members across the aisle continue to recite the same talking points ad nauseam. That being said, I have no doubt about your own competence, especially since you come from a region where the manufacturing sector is so— The Deputy Speaker : Order. I would remind the member to direct his comments through the Chair rather than to the member. Mr. Pierre Nantel : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The region where the member for Markham—Unionville is from has been hard hit by difficulties in the manufacturing sector. While the NDP leader has made repeated announcements to support that sector, does the member not find it troubling to see his leader trivializing the situation by saying that the 1.7 million workers in his region will simply have to switch to another kind of work? Hon. John McCallum : Mr. Speaker, I preferred the first part of my colleague's comments, regarding the need for our two parties to denounce the misinformation being spread by the government members.

As for the second part of his comments, it is not at all true that the leader of the Liberal Party does not want to emphasize the importance of the manufacturing sector. It is true that we have not yet announced the details of our policy, but the election is still a few weeks or a few months away. Between now and then, the member will hear some very good news regarding an excellent plan from the Liberal Party to support the manufacturing sector and other important economic sectors. Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for St.

John's East . I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to the opposition motion on the CIBC report on job quality. We often debate the issue of employment in the House. The government likes to boast about how many jobs have been created since the depths of the recession. We sincerely hope that jobs will be created after a recession as bad as the one we recently went through. However, contrary to what the government and its members are saying, job quality plays a key role in people's quality of life. The results have not been as clear-cut and successful as the government likes to claim.

In its report, CIBC clearly shows that its employment quality index has dropped dramatically since the 1990s. It has gone down by 15%, which is a fairly big drop. It has dropped by 10% since the early 2000s, and last year, the latest year of the index, there was a significant drop of 1.8%, despite the fact that a rather large number of jobs were created. The reason has to do with the effectiveness of the government and its policies.

When we talk, for example, about full-time and part-time jobs, the government's efforts have greatly encouraged the creation of part-time and low-paying jobs, which has led many Canadians to choose self-employment over paid employment, often involuntarily. Take for example the issue of high-paying jobs versus low-paying jobs. In my opinion, this is a key issue, and CIBC recognized that. In fact, CIBC noted that low-paying jobs rose at twice the pace of high-paying jobs. An important example of the consequences of this reality and the government's misguided approach is Burger King's acquisition of Tim Hortons.

We can debate this acquisition. I think that it is having a negative effect and that it shows the impact of the corporate tax rate in Canada, which is well below that of the United States. This creates a phenomenon called tax inversion, which makes companies more attractive to American businesses. I want to come back to the announcement made at the end of January by Burger King and Tim Hortons, when 350 well-paid corporate Tim Hortons workers were laid off.

When we raised this issue in the House and asked the Minister of Industry questions, he said, quite proudly, that following consultations with the newly merged company, he was promised that there would be 500 new franchises in Canada. When he says 500 new franchises, that is exactly what we are talking about. These are not steady jobs. They are often part time and not well paid. He was comparing these poorly paid jobs and the jobs that will be created with the 350 high-quality, well-paid jobs that were lost as a result of the merger, and he put a positive spin on it to boot.

That is where I take issue with the government's idea that any job is a good job, that a part-time job is just as good as a full-time job, or that a poorly paid job is the same as a well-paid job. The CIBC did a fine job of painting the overall picture of the employment situation in Canada, going beyond the anecdotes that the government likes to recite to us in the House. One of the things the Conservatives often like to talk about during question period, but not during answer period, because the answer is totally inconsistent, is the

article published in the New York Times last November, according to which the Canadian middle class is now richer than the American middle class. However, the Conservatives neglect to say how this came to be or why this is currently the case. The New York Times

article showed that three main reasons explain this situation, but the government never mentions those. The primary reason is the failure of the U.S. elementary school system, which is training a workforce that is less qualified or not as well qualified as the previous generation.

(1135) If we take the time to read the article, we find that Americans between the ages of 55 and 65 have above-average skills compared to their peers in other industrialized countries. As for the 16 to 24 year olds, their literacy, numeracy, and technology skills lag behind those of their peers in Canada, Australia, Japan, Scandinavia, among others. One of the main reasons for the gap between Americans and Canadians is the education system. The government has very little to do with it because education is a provincial jurisdiction. I will quote the second reason given in the New York Times

article to explain the reduction of the income gap between the American and Canadian middle classes. [ English ] A second factor is that companies in the United States economy distribute a smaller share of their bounty to the middle class and poor than similar companies elsewhere. Top executives make substantially more money in the United States than in other wealthy countries. The minimum wage is lower. Labor unions are weaker. (1140) [ Translation ] From the New York Times

article we can infer that the relative strength of the union movement in Canada compared to that in the United States is one of the factors that has contributed to the positive wealth gap between the middle class in Canada and that in the United States. We will not bring Europe into the discussion. However, we have a government that is fighting to undermine union strength in Canada. The difference in wealth, therefore, is not the result of the government's policies. On the contrary, this is true because the Conservatives have not yet reached the high point in their policy to destroy a rather strong middle class. Third, the New York Times

article mentions the level of redistribution of wealth. In the United States, the redistribution of wealth is much less efficient than here in Canada. Once again, most of the policies introduced by the government since 2006 do not target more equitable redistribution, as shown by increased income inequality among other things. The government prides itself on the fact that its economic policies have helped make the middle class stronger.

However, according to that New York Times article, our middle class did not become richer than the American middle class because of the strength of our economy, but rather because of the weakness of American policies. If I were the government I would be very careful about drawing any significant conclusions from one story that draws on a set of interesting data to give a snapshot of the quality of life of our middle class compared to that of the United States. As with any other economic situation, there is often much more to the snapshot than they would have us believe.

Economic experts urged us to be cautious when analyzing these documents and not to draw broad conclusions. William Robson, the president and CEO of the C.D. Howe Institute, said that the wealth of Canada's middle class was growing more slowly than that of the rest of the population, meaning Canadians who are either wealthier or poorer. The government can boast all it wants and say that we are in a good position compared to the United States, but there is no evidence that the government's policies or actions contributed to the strength of the middle class.

On the contrary, the middle class continues to get weaker compared to the rest of the population, which was one of the findings of the CIBC study. If jobs are less stable and the number of part-time jobs is increasing at a faster pace than the number of full-time jobs, the country will not be in a better place—quite the contrary. These are measures we need to examine, which is why I am proud to say that the NDP is starting to unveil parts of our economic agenda, which will strengthen the middle class. In fact, this is something we have been doing for a quite some time. Ms.

Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government claims that it is 100% behind Canadians and that it wants to do its best for the economy. However, not one single Conservative MP listened to my colleague's excellent speech, and nobody stood up to ask a question. This proves that the government is in way over its head on the economy.

My question for my colleague is about this quote: [ English ] Last month, Deputy Governor Carolyn Wilkins said in a speech that the economy was about 270,000 jobs short of its full capacity at the end of 2014. [ Translation ] She was comparing the situation to how things were before the recession. That was before Target, Tim Hortons and all of the closures announced in the past few months. I would like my colleague to comment on the Conservatives' record with respect to the creation of those 1.2 million part-time, low-quality jobs when it says right here that there are no jobs for Canadians.

(1145) Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, when we talk about job creation and the 1.2 million jobs the government keeps referring to, we have to remember that that was at the lowest point of the recession, when we reached an unenviable level. Of course things have gone up since then. We talk a lot about economic cycles. Once we hit the low point of a cycle, eventually, no matter which government is in power, we are going to come back up again. The question is whether we can come back up in a way that is good for the entire economy. The Bank of Canada's Ms.

Wilkins was referring to the fact that job creation was not keeping pace with demographic growth. Job creation did not keep up with the number of Canadians ready, willing and able to work. The fact is that there are far more unemployed Canadians now than there were in 2009 and 2006. It is fine to have an economic cycle that is on the upswing and makes job creation possible, but the government still needs to implement measures to promote even faster growth.

I would like to tell the House that some of this government's policies have actually restricted and slowed economic growth and our ability to achieve our potential. That is really terrible. Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his compelling speech. It is clear that he feels strongly about what he just said. We in the NDP want to reduce the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%. I wonder if he could briefly explain how this measure would benefit small businesses. Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

We know that small and medium-size enterprises, or SMEs, are responsible for much of the job creation in Canada. However, a good portion of the jobs lost are also often lost in SMEs. Starting up a small business is risky. Many SMEs are started, but they never develop enough to become stable and maintain those jobs. There is always the hope that those SMEs will make it to the next level and become stable businesses that provide well-paying jobs. The government has ignored the NDP's longstanding requests. These requests were part of our 2011 platform, and even our 2008 platform, if I am not mistaken.

We want to lower the tax rate to 9%. The government made an effort and lowered it from 12% to 11%, which is a step in the right direction. However, that is not enough to give small and medium-size businesses the stability and flexibility they need to grow and transform these jobs—which are admittedly somewhat precarious at first, since it is a risky endeavour—into well-paying jobs that benefit society in economic terms. [ English ] Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity today to join in this debate on the NDP motion, which calls upon the government to take seriously the needs of Canadians, for a proper level of stimulation and to deal with the very high, sustained unemployment we have in Canada. The Conservatives keep talking about job creation, but what we hear is that the job situation in Canada is in fact getting worse. Their plans do not include a solution to the problem. Since the 2008 recession and a long-term downward trend in job quality, as described most eloquently by a recent CIBC report, job quality is going down.

What is job quality? Job quality is an index being used by the CIBC, the employment quality index, that deals with the distribution of full-time and part-time jobs. We are seeing fewer full-time jobs and more part-time jobs; not only part-time jobs, but jobs that have been described as precarious employment. These are short-term part-time jobs and term employment, where one works for a few weeks here and a few weeks there. There is an inability to even qualify for employment insurance, the jobs are so precarious.

Therefore, less than 40% of those who are unemployed are even able to qualify for employment insurance, despite the fact that they may have been working quite a bit in the period leading up to their unemployment, because of the changes to the employment insurance regime that this government and the previous Liberal government have brought in. The employment quality index also deals with self-employment versus paid employment and the compensation ranking of jobs in a hundred different industry groups.

It looks at whether we are dealing with good-quality jobs that pay well, that provide some benefits, that allow people to take advantage of a middle-class income standard that gives a quality of life whereby they do not have to be concerned about where their next meal or their next rent cheque is coming from and they have a measure of security for themselves and their families. That is something that Canadians really deserve to have. We have a very prosperous country. We have superior level of natural resources. The GDP in Canada is very high. However, we have growing inequality. What do we do about it?

We have a government that does not deal with that problem. It comes up with an income-sharing scheme that is extremely expensive and is going to benefit only 15% of the population, and unfortunately, it costs $3 billion of taxpayers' money that could well be spent in providing for programs such as the ones we have put forward, like a high-quality child care program that would allow Canadian families to have quality child care at an affordable price to a maximum of $15 a day. I have heard some of the members opposite describe it today as being a big bureaucracy, somehow or other.

One thing about it is that it would actually require someone to sit down with the provinces, something the Prime Minister has not done since he has been in power. Why is that? It is because he does not really want to have good national programs that raise all boats by giving Canadian working families a real opportunity to have a decent job, to support their families, and to become a part of the middle class to which so many aspire if they are not already there.

That term “middle class” is kind of a funny term to me because, as New Democrats, we have always talked about the working class or people who have been left out, but most Canadians see themselves as either being in or aspiring to be part of the middle class. Therefore, when we talk about middle-class Canadians, we are talking about the bulk of Canadians who see themselves as, hopefully, participating in the economy, having an opportunity for some income security and hopefully retirement security, being able to educate their children, and giving them a good start in life.

(1150) Instead, what we have is fear and worry because of the precarious job situation of this generation. They are saying that their parents had a better way of life and that progress ended with their parents. Do we want the next generation to say that progress in life and in this country ended with their parents? That is a legacy that I do not want to see us leave to the next generation. That is the danger with the policies of the Conservative government.

It is why we are calling for the first priority of the upcoming budget to be investment in measures that stimulate the economy, that create and protect sustainable, full-time, middle-class jobs in high-paying industries in all regions of Canada. It is why we are calling for the government to abandon its costly and unfair $2 billion income-splitting proposal. We talk about all regions of the country. Look at my province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are suffering with an unemployment rate higher than 11%. The last number I saw was 11.4% unemployment. That is shocking.

To talk about all of this so-called economic progress that has been made is unacceptable. Instead of seeing job stimulation through investments in infrastructure and job creation, we are seeing what the Conservatives think will get votes from their base. They are rewarding their base because they promised four or five years ago that they would have income splitting, which has been shown to be costly, ineffective, and bad public policy, according to the late finance minister. It has contributed to growing inequality in this country.

That is the kind of policy that the Conservative government is putting forward, instead of policies that would help to lower the amount of inequality we have. It is not only in Newfoundland and Labrador. We see it in other provinces as well, but I will talk about my home province since it is the one closest to my heart. In addition to the high unemployment rate, we have a staggering problem now as a result of the lowering of oil prices. The Newfoundland and Labrador government has announced that it will be facing a $1 billion deficit for the first time in Newfoundland and Labrador history.

It is going to have a very difficult job assisting people, providing the services it has been providing, and providing the kind of stimulus that would be needed to sustain the jobs and growth that are necessary in that economy. In times like that, provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador do expect the Government of Canada to play a more positive role, to get in there and say it needs to solve some of these problems and help by stimulating the economy, jobs, and growth. It is not doing it. We are looking for immediate action in the budget to boost job creation and to grow our economy.

We are not the only ones who believe it is important that this happens. Concerns have been raised by others who recognize that issues such as a balanced budget are not the most important thing to have in the Canadian economy this year. What is really required is trying to make some progress in economic terms, and we are not doing that.

Kevin Page, for example, said that in the last 10 years, we have made virtually no progress on all of our big issues, such as longer term economic challenges, closing innovation gaps in the economy, dealing with aging demographics that will put pressure on health care, and dealing with environmental sustainability. We have not even had discussions or proposals from the government. I see that my time is rapidly running out here. We really need to help small business owners. That is part of our proposal and our plan.

Cuts to the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%, extending the accelerated cost allowances, and other ideas are part of our economic plan. We hope that the members opposite will see the light and support this motion.

(1155) Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister of Labour, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech this morning, highlighting the need for improved jobs, growth, economic development, and long-term prosperity, particularly on the east coast and Atlantic Canada, from which we both hail. The Conservative government has strongly supported small businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada.

One way it did that was providing a loan guarantee for the Muskrat Falls project in Labrador, which will provide clean, green, perpetual energy throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. This will provide a stable price for energy in both Newfoundland and Labrador and all of Atlantic Canada. I wonder if the member opposite can comment on the meaningful benefits that the project will have in providing clean, green energy and stable power rates so that small businesses can have certainty and dependability. This is a great initiative from our government.

I hope that the member opposite supports it, and I wonder if he could comment on the good work that our government has done in support of that project. Mr. Jack Harris : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising the issue of loan guarantees. It is something that I and my party have supported going back to 2004 and 2005. We were there supporting the notion of a federal loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill development long before the current government made any commitment in that regard.

Clearly, it is a positive thing that the federal government finally decided to support a loan guarantee for Newfoundland and Labrador hydro development. However, never before today have I heard it referred to as a small business measure. This is an $8-billion project, and it will have a loan guarantee of $6.2 billion. In our understanding, that is not a small business; that is a very large business.

While we recognize that it is an important role for the Government of Canada to play, what we have offered is a cut in the small business tax rate from 11% to 9% in recognition that 98% of all businesses in Canada are small businesses, and they do need help because they are the big job creators. (1200) [ Translation ] Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I agree with my colleague. Canada's middle class is not doing so well, whether in his province or in my region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. Yesterday, I asked the minister a question about this.

I pointed out that 85 jobs were lost in my region last week. Those were good jobs that paid well. I also agree with the report that was presented to us. It shows that the middle class is struggling in Canada. Good jobs are rare. The Conservative government chooses to put its eggs in the wrong basket. I would like my colleague to elaborate on what could be done to help small and medium-sized enterprises create good jobs in communities. These enterprises create a lot of jobs in the country. [ English ] Mr. Jack Harris : Mr.

Speaker, I know that many regions of the country, and the member talked about his, are suffering from job losses. However, one of the biggest job creators, certainly in the private sector, has been small businesses. In fact, 78% of all new private sector jobs between 2002 and 2012 have been created by small business. Yet, the Conservatives have really ignored the small business owners in favour of the wealthier corporations. They have cut the corporate tax rate for the wealthiest corporations by over 25%, but their support for small business has only been a cut of 1%. We know where their emphasis has been.

We also know where the job creation is in the private sector. It is in many regions of the country, particularly in rural areas, such as that represented by the hon. member, and in places like Newfoundland and Labrador where every job counts. When there is an unemployment rate of 11.4%, a persistently high unemployment rate, it needs the support of public measures such as those we are proposing in order to advance and provide those jobs that people need. Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this House on the aspirations of working-class families and building an economy where people who are struggling move into the middle class, and the middle class gets ahead. Members of the high-tax parties believe that governments must run the lives and spend the money of struggling families, that they can reduce poverty by taking money from working families and spending it for them. Conservatives believe that the best social safety net is a strong family and that the best anti-poverty plan is a good job. That is why our low-tax plan helps families and creates jobs.

Members of the high-tax parties here today will tell us that they are more generous. The truth is that they are more generous with other people's money. They like to spend it on themselves. However, wealthy union bosses, well-paid lobbyists and lawyers who charge hundreds of dollars an hour to do so-called advocacy litigation have nothing to do with social justice. Despite all the high-minded rhetoric of the high-tax parties, the evidence is in.

It shows that two things have happened since our government has taken office: one, families are moving out of poverty and into the middle class; and two, the middle class is getting ahead. In fact, it is ahead of any other middle class in any other country in the world. Here are the facts. Between 2005 and 2011, during which time our government has been in office, take-home pay among low-income families is up by 14% after tax and inflation.

Even Andrew Coyne, who endorsed the Liberals, wrote: In 2011, the latest year for which StatsCan has figures, the proportion of the population living on low income—that is, with incomes below the agency’s Low Income Cut-off (LICO)--fell to its lowest level … well, ever. At just 8.8%, it beat the previous record of 9.0%, set in 2010. As recently as 1996, it was at 15.2%. We have gone from 15.2% of families living in poverty to 8.8%, a cut of almost half in just two decades from when the Liberals were in power until we took office.

That is an extraordinary phenomenon and there are other statistics to support that it is a sweeping phenomenon and not an isolated statistic. Let me go on. Throughout the world, while the global recession came about between 2008 and roughly 2011, one would expect that child poverty would go up. Millions lose their jobs and have lower incomes and as a result more children are living below the line, but not in Canada. In fact, in Canada child poverty actually dropped by 180,000 children between 2008 and 2011. Was this the result of some expensive new government program?

No, the evidence is clear that we reduced poverty by putting money back in the pockets of families. David Morley of UNICEF said, “If Canada is faring better than other western democracies, it is due to measures that are favourable to families, like tax credits, fiscal measures and benefits that have been maintained or put in place to counter the effects of the global crisis.” It is not hard to understand why. Let us look at the universal child-care benefit. Over 13 years, the Liberals spent billions of dollars trying to set up a government-run daycare program.

Bureaucracies, government-funded lobbyists and researchers got all kinds of money, but in the end it did not create a single, solitary daycare space. The Liberals and the New Democrats, high in the ivory tower looking down, think modest families cannot be trusted to make their own decisions, that we need a bureaucracy to control every aspect of their lives and all of their money. I am proud to say we cancelled the Liberal bureaucracy. We divided up the savings and sent it to parents in cheques in the amount of $1,200 per child under the age of six. We called it the universal child care benefit.

(1205) I asked my officials what the impact is of this benefit on poverty. Very methodically they gave me an answer. First, we use the low-income cut-off lines, which take after-tax incomes of all families with children to determine how many are low-income. Second, we did the very same comparison but based on what a family's after-tax income would have been without the universal child care benefit. The answer showed that there are 41,000 kids whose families would be beneath the poverty line without the universal child care benefit, but are above it because that benefit exists. That was not all.

We increased the amount of money that families can earn before they start paying taxes and removed one million Canadians from the tax rolls altogether. Let me quote the Parliamentary Budget Officer on our tax reductions, because there has been a lot of misinformation about who benefits from those tax reductions. Let me quote his report: In total, cumulative changes have reduced federal tax revenue by $30 billion, or 12 per cent. These changes have been progressive, overall. Low and middle income earners have benefited more, in relative terms, than higher income earners.

The report also points out that the highest 10% of income earners benefited the least with after tax gains of just 1.4%. The $30 billion in annual tax cuts sounds like an incomprehensibly large amount of money. It is; that is a lot of tax cuts. Let me say what it means for an average family. We have a country with 35 million people. Divide $30 billion by 35 million, we get $850 per person, per man, woman and child, in lower taxes. For a family of four that is $3,400.

That might not sound like a lot of money to wealthy limousine Liberals or champagne socialists, but the reality is to an average family working hard to make ends meet and get ahead, that $3,400 can make the difference. That is why we are going to continue to reduce taxes for Canadian families. I should emphasize that with regard to the $850 per person in tax relief that happens every year under our government, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said specifically that the money went disproportionately to low- and middle-income earners.

The reality is that when we put money back in the pockets of everyday people, they do the right thing with it. They lift themselves up and they do the same for their children. They give their kids a better start in life. We have to believe in families and in workers and in small business owners to trust them to keep their own money. We on this side of the House believe in Canadians and we trust them to keep their earnings.

It is not just the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report or data from StatsCan that shows we are getting better off in Canada, in fact even the liberal-leaning New York Times wrote, “Life in Canada, Home of the World's Most Affluent Middle Class”. It also compared the years when the Liberal Party was in power and found that after-tax middle-class incomes in Canada, substantially behind in 2000, now appear to be higher than in the United States. Overall, since taking office, personal income taxes are down by 10% and take-home pay is up by 10%, on average across income levels.

In fact, the lower quartile of income earners have actually benefited more than all others across the spectrum. The median net worth of Canadian families is up by 24% since 2005 when the Liberals were in power. That brings me to the question before the House on the family tax cut and benefits that we recently instituted. I just finished talking about everything we have done in the past nine years. Now let us talk about the present.

(1210) In the fall, our Minister of Finance introduced the family tax cut and benefits for families, which did three things. First, it allowed couples to split their income to save up $2,000 on their taxes. Therefore, if one spouse earns more than the other, the higher income earning spouse can give enough to the lower spouse to equalize that, which will reduce their tax burden and allow them to keep more of their money. This allows families to make choices about how they raise their children.

Second, we increased the universal child care benefit from $1,200 to $1,900 per preschool child, that great poverty-fighting, middle-class supporting benefit that I discussed earlier. We also extended it for children under the age of 18. Any child who is over the age of 6 and under 18 will be eligible for up to $720 per year. Finally, we increased the daycare tax credit by $1,000 so families that put their kids in a local community daycare could claim more of those costs on their taxes. What does this mean for a family? Let me provide a few scenarios.

For families with incomes of $95,000 and $25,000 with two kids, one under 6 and one between 6 to 17, the net federal benefit for the 2015 tax year as a result of these new tax breaks is $2,835. Families where both mom and dad each earn $60,000, with two kids, one under the age of six and the other in the adolescent years, would save $875. A single income couple making $60,000 with one parent in the home and two kids would have a $1,605 benefit.

The net benefit for a single parent with a modest income of $45,000 and a child under the age of six the net benefit for the 2015 tax year as a result of these new breaks we have brought in for families will be $402. In fact, every family with kids is better off as a result of the family tax cut and benefits. Through this motion today, the high-tax opposition parties have announced that if they ever get the chance to take office, they will take that money away. They will reach their hands into the pockets of hard-working families and take away these hard won gains. We will not let them.

As I said at the outset, the best social safety net is a strong family. That is why we are helping families with the family tax cut and benefits. The best anti-poverty plan is a good job. That is why we have a low tax plan that creates jobs. It has created 1.2 million net new jobs, 85% of which are full time, 80% in the private sector, and two-thirds in high wage industries. That is the best relative job-creation record in the G7.

Let me quote the International Monetary Fund, which said: Over the past several years, Canada has taken numerous steps to reduce the economy’s vulnerabilities through policies designed to keep financial institutions and the financial system as a whole safer. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said, “The current system of taxes and transfers serves to increasingly equalize income as inequality increases”. These improvements allow for a stable and strong economy that creates more jobs for Canadians. Our job creation plan is widespread and sensible. It includes trade, tax cuts and training.

Let me talk for a moment about training. As we were growing up, we were told that the only way we could be a success was to go to university. University is great. I had the honour to attend the University of Calgary. However, there are also honourable and prosperous lives to be had in the trades. We wanted to reorient our training program to fill the one million skilled job vacancies that we expect will appear in Canada over the next decade.

(1215) We need more plumbers, electricians, carpenters, stonemasons, and I could name many more. Our government created the apprenticeship grants, which help those families that want to give their children a chance to learn these great trades so they can go on to high salaries and incomes in high demand fields. I am thinking now of those families with working class backgrounds that struggle to get by. People know the types I am speaking of, those who scrimp and save and set aside every penny they can so their 18 and 19 year olds can go to college and get a certificate to practise in the trades.

Some of them just do not quite make it. That is why we brought in this grant, so these families with these young people could get their shot. They can get their opportunity to make a good life and have a better future, literally building our country. This year we went beyond the apprenticeship grant and brought in the apprenticeship loan. For those young people who do not quite have enough money to retool their skills, we will now give them an interest-free loan while they study so they build those skills and ultimately build a better life for themselves. Already it is working.

Half a million young people have benefited from our apprenticeship grants. Even though we just announced the loan at the beginning of January, we already have 2,000 young people who are benefiting from those loans. This is just the beginning. We are going to reorient our economy. We are going to give the proper esteem to these important trades jobs, because trades are just as a good as professions, college is just as good as university, and a good blue collar job is just as beneficial to the Canadian economy as a white collar job.

Working class Canadians deserve that respect, and they also deserve the same benefits and help as everyone else. We are going to ensure that they get it. There is a difference between the high tax parties and our low tax government. The high tax parties are for union bosses; we are for workers. The high tax parties want to spend millions on a new office headed by a “children's commissioner”. We believe there are already eight million children's commissioners across country whose names are mom and dad. The high tax parties want to turn workers against business owners; we want to turn workers into business owners.

They want to make the rich poorer; we want to make the poor rich. They believe in a hand out; we believe in a hand up. They want a government that stands in the way; we want a government that stands by people's side. We are going to continue to work to keep Canadians working. We have come so far. Working and middle-class families have made so much progress over the last 10 years. However, our work is not done. There is still more to do. We need to put yet more money in the pockets of middle-class families so they can spend in their communities, start small businesses and save for their futures.

We need to create yet more jobs; 1.2 million jobs is a lot but it still is not enough. We need more. We are going to ensure that people have the skills they need for the jobs of today, and we are going to continue with our agenda of trade, training and tax cuts to take our country forward so families can secure and build on the gains they have already won, and build the drea